Action against unlawful betting must itself follow the law. The reported use of forged High Court orders to block betting websites raises two distinct questions: who was responsible for creating and using the documents, and whether the resulting blocking directions had a valid legal basis. The alleged illegality of the websites does not answer either question.
A Reuters investigation reported that the Department of Telecommunications issued directions on July 21 and September 2, 2026, covering 129 betting websites, relying on purported Rajasthan and Allahabad High Court orders. The Rajasthan High Court’s registrar said the document attributed to it “appears to be fraudulent”. The Allahabad High Court confirmed that the other document was fake and filed a police complaint.
The purported Rajasthan order required compliance within 24 hours. The Allahabad document carried a court logo, seal and QR code. However, the code led to a webpage displaying a case number rather than authenticating the order. The documents resulted in directions covering 34 and 95 websites, respectively. A document’s appearance cannot establish its authenticity.
The concern is not merely that false documents were circulated. They were presented as judicial directions and used to obtain government action. A fabricated order claims the authority of a court without a judicial decision behind it.
Section 337 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 covers forging a document or electronic record “purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court”. It provides for imprisonment of up to seven years and a fine.
Liability may extend beyond the document’s creator. Section 340(2) punishes anyone who fraudulently or dishonestly uses a forged document as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe that it is forged. The punishment is the same as for forging that document. Failure to detect a forgery does not, by itself, establish criminal participation.
Investigators must distinguish between those who created or knowingly used the documents and those who processed them without detecting the forgery. They should examine how the documents were received, who transmitted them and what checks preceded implementation. Criminal responsibility and administrative verification failures require separate examination.
The legal basis for blocking requires equally close scrutiny. Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, permits government blocking on specified grounds, including public order, subject to prescribed safeguards. It requires reasons to be recorded in writing. An allegation of unlawful activity does not dispense with these requirements.
Rule 10 of the Information Technology Blocking Rules, 2009, addresses court-directed blocking. On receiving a “certified copy of the court order”, the designated officer must submit it to the Secretary, Department of Information Technology, and initiate action as directed by the court. This procedure presupposes an order actually issued by a competent court.
The departmental records must establish which powers were invoked and what verification preceded the directions. Verification should establish both that the court issued the order and that the proposed action accurately reflects its terms. Independent confirmation through official court records or the issuing registry is a practical safeguard, not a verification method expressly prescribed by Rule 10. Those checks should be documented to permit subsequent scrutiny.
Discovery of a forgery does not establish that the websites operated lawfully. It does, however, require the resulting directions to be reviewed. Any continued restriction must rest on an independent, valid legal basis, rather than the assumption that the original outcome was justified.
The legality of the betting websites and the validity of the blocking directions must be examined separately. Where blocking is warranted, it must rest on the applicable law and prescribed procedure. A forged court order cannot supply the authority for that action.
The author is managing partner of MDP, a leading law firm based in Mumbai
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of THE WEEK
